@article {1363,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (June 2020)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {06/2020},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {3},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {Bitcoin, blockchain, crowdfunding, crypto assets, cryptocurrencies, developing countries., distributed ledger technology, Employeedriven innovation, entrepreneurial finance, entrepreneurship, Ethereum, Financial industry, FinTech, ICOs, IEO, innovation, intellectual property rights, internationalization, IT industry, job autonomy, mining industry, moral hazard, need for autonomy, new company, Porter{\textquoteright}s Five Forces framework, regulation, scaling company value, scaling-up, self-leadership, signaling, SME, STO, sustainability, technological environment, technology, technology readiness, token offering, token sales, tokenization, value proposition, value proposition alignment, venture capital},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1363},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1363},
	author = {Stoyan Tanev and Gregory Sandstrom}
}
@article {1366,
	title = {Is Porter{\textquoteright}s Five Forces Framework Still Relevant? A study of the capital/labour intensity continuum via mining and IT industries},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {06/2020},
	pages = {28-41},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {28},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Porter{\textquoteright}s Five Forces (P5F) framework, published in 1979, helps us to understand the attractiveness of an industry. The five competitive forces are: the threat of new entrants, the bargaining power of buyers, the bargaining power of suppliers, the threat of substitute products of services, and the rivalry among existing competitors. This framework has recently come under scrutiny and been called into question. To contribute to the debate, this paper investigates the relevance of Porter{\textquoteright}s framework by contrasting vastly different industries. The use cases consist of a resource-based, capital-intensive industry, the mining industry, and a knowledge-based, labor-intensive industry, the information technology industry. Drawing from research on Porter{\textquoteright}s Five Forces framework, and through an internationalization lens, the paper proposes a modified framework augmented with four additional forces. These additional forces are: the competitor{\textquoteright}s level of innovativeness, exposure to globalization, threat of digitalization, and industry exposure to de/regulation activities. These forces were added to capture the increased interconnectivity and complexity of businesses operating in the 21st century. The paper contributes to this body of knowledge by augmenting a popular framework and applying it to vital industrial sectors. The findings aim to incite researchers, managers, entrepreneurs and policymakers to go beyond the traditional five forces as a way to help monitor their business environment and enhance decision-making processes, particularly in a post-COVID-19 world.},
	keywords = {internationalization, IT industry, mining industry, Porter{\textquoteright}s Five Forces framework, regulation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1366},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1366},
	author = {Diane Isabelle and Kevin Horak and Sarah McKinnon and Chiara Palumbo}
}
@article {1137,
	title = {Inclusive Innovation in Biohacker Spaces: The Role of Systems and Networks},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {02/2018},
	pages = {27-37},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we examine the development of biohacker spaces and their impact on innovation systems through the lens of inclusive innovation. Examining issues associated with people, activities, outcomes, and governance, we observe that biohacker spaces offer an alternative approach to biotechnological research outside the orthodox walls of academia, industry, and government. We explain that harnessing the full innovative potential of these spaces depends on flexible legal and regulatory systems, including appropriate biosafety regulations and intellectual property policies and practices, and organic, community-based social and financial networking.},
	keywords = {biohacker spaces, biohacking, biotechnology, crowdfunding, inclusive innovation, innovation, law, regulation, social networks},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1137},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1137},
	author = {Jeremy de Beer and Vipal Jain}
}
@article {837,
	title = {Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Models for Providers of Critical Infrastructure},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {10/2014},
	pages = {33-39},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Critical infrastructure such as power generation and distribution systems, telecommunications networks, pipelines and pipeline control networks, transportation control networks, financial networks, and government information and communications technology (ICT) have increasingly become the target of cyber-attacks. The impact and cost of these threats, as well as regulatory pressure to mitigate them, have created an impetus to secure these critical infrastructures. Managers have many controls and models at their disposal to help them secure infrastructure technology, including cybersecurity capability maturity models to enable measurement and communication of cybersecurity readiness to top management teams, regulators, and customers, thereby facilitating regulatory compliance, corporate responsibility, and improved brand quality. However, information and awareness is lacking about which models are most appropriate for a given situation and how they should be deployed.

This article examines relevant cybersecurity capability maturity models to identify the standards and controls available to providers of critical infrastructure in an effort to improve their level of security preparedness. These capability models are described and categorized by their relevance to different infrastructure domains, and then recommendations are provided on employing capability maturity models to measure and communicate readiness. This article will be relevant to regulators, critical infrastructure providers, and researchers. },
	keywords = {adoption, bersecurity, capability maturity models, compliance, critical infrastructure, framework, municipalities, protection, regulation, standards},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/837},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/837},
	author = {Walter Miron and Kevin Muita}
}
@article {700,
	title = {Cybersecurity Futures: How Can We Regulate Emergent Risks?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {07/2013},
	pages = {6-11},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article reviews nine socio-technical trends that are likely to shape the cybersecurity environment over the next decade. These nine trends have reached various levels of maturity, and some {\textendash} such as quantum computing {\textendash} are still theoretically contentious. These trends are: cloud computing; big data; the Internet of Things; the mobile Internet; brain{\textendash}computer interfaces; near field communication payment systems; mobile robots; quantum computing; and the militarization of the Internet.

What these nine trends have in common is that they will be instrumental in generating new opportunities for offending, which will result from an exponential increase in the quantity of data, number of connection points to the Internet, and velocity of data flows that irrigate the digital ecosystem. As a result, more opportunities for malicious exploitation will be available to attackers, {\textquotedblleft}security by design{\textquotedblright} will be harder to achieve in such a fluid and dynamic environment, and the performance of control mechanisms is likely to erode significantly. 

Technical solutions to address these challenges are already being developed by computer scientists. This article focuses on a different and complementary approach, finding inspiration in the work of regulatory scholars who have framed promising theories such as regulatory pluralism and responsive regulation to explore options for the necessary institutional adaptation to these future changes. },
	keywords = {cybersecurity, cybersecurity policies, digital ecosystem, emerging risks, forecasting, regulation, technological trends},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/700},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/700},
	author = {Benoit Dupont}
}
